Because Trump 2.0

[lastdingo]

Has General Flynn been able to withdraw his plea? I can't imagine under the circumstances that he can be convicted now.

Lying to the FBI? Anything said to people so dishonest that they'd edit a transcript shouldn't be admissible in court.

An American judge would dismiss evidence that has been acquired illegally, but that doesn't wipe away evidence that has been acquired legally - such as a repeated confession to court. Flynn is practically guaranteed to be convicted.

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/16/flynn-sentencing-judge-rejects-tricked-086269

[lastdingo]

 

もちろん、メンバーの全員は2%の貢献するべきから、長い間に十分に貢献していないメンバーを批判するのはふさわしい。

それが起こっていることです。

 

 

2%は高過ぎだったら、1.8や1.5とか、までに減少する提案があるはずけど、そういう話はあまりなさそうね。だから2%を貢献しないといけないということになるね。

ギリシャは2％の余裕があります。ドイツもそうすべきです。 (Greece can afford 2%. Germany should as well.)

 

 

 

でも、十分に貢献していないメンバーにそれそれにどのぐらい批判するかというと、やっぱり、簡単なことではない。

それはあまりにも長い間起こっています。自業自得。

(It has been going on for too long. what goes around comes around.)

 

 

政府や財務省、予算、防衛装備品、軍隊の準備や訓練、全部は複雑なんだ。それを知っているはずなんだ。だから、簡単にギリシャがOK、フランスとかがダメだと宣言するのはフランスのほうがちゃんとしている事実を認めてない。そうすると、最もいい政策を提案できないやろう。

もちろん。目標は2％です。 What is apparent is that the wealthy European nations do not, not becuase they can not, but because they will not. They take the US for Granted.

 

I'm not going to try to get those translated into Japanese with the complex mix of negatives and positives. The meaning would be hopelessly wrong I'm sure.

 

You guys keep writing bullshit.

There's no 2% obligation. You were already informed about the legal irrelevance of the 2% goal.

 

Meanwhile, Article 1 of the North Atlantic Treaty is binding by international law and by the U.S. constitution. It's being habitually violated by the United States, which turns the United States into a horrible treaty ally that has zero moral high ground to demand anything.

 

 

Article 1

The Parties undertake, as set forth in the Charter of the United Nations, to settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security and justice are not endangered, and to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

 

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_17120.htm

 

Every single bit of cruise missile diplomacy sets the moral high ground of the U.S. to -100 metres.

We can discuss your fantasies about what non-treaty obligations might exist or not when the U.S. learns to meet its binding part of a treaty.

Edited December 21, 2019 by lastdingo

[Stefan Fredriksson]

Has any previous president been this entertaining, for real? The best snippets from his rally speeches are so funny, they can not even be parodized. Will he get more entertaining as he gets a few years older? I hope so. Vote Trump!

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Many of these nations actually spend roughly the same in real terms, because of the different size of their economies. For example, Greece spends 2 percent on defence, but that is because their economy is through the floor, and continually owning 40 year old kit there is little real cost involved in procurement.

The target is 2%. If Greece maintains F4s and flys them and keeps the capable of ground strike and Air to Air Missions, is that better or worse than a batch of Eurofighters that are grounded because the pilots are out of certification, there's no fuel and no parts?

 

 

 

Against S400's and possibly Su57's which is what Turkey will have in the next decade? What do you think? Id rather have one jet that can fulfill its mission, than 50 which are just skeet.

 

 

 

Germany only spends about what. 1.4 or so? And they have the strongest economy in Europe. In real terms I would not be surprised if they are actually spending around the same amount that the UK and France are in real terms. Its only 1.4 percent the size of the economy, which if your economy is larger than anyone elses....

 

 

What I see online in reports is that Germany is incapable of national defense right now.

 

https://www.dw.com/en/germanys-lack-of-military-readiness-dramatic-says-bundeswehr-commissioner/a-42663215

 

Low optempo on peacekeeping and area warfare has driven them down to incapable. How would they handle a high optempo war?

 

 

You wanted nato to convert to fight terrorism in Afghanistan. They did as required. Now you are complaining they are not the nato you remember. What precisely do you expect? You got what you wanted.

 

 

The 2 percent was an easy target, just as the 3 percent target in the 1980's, was misunderstood. What we really should do is lay down requirements and say 'Hey UK, you are good at sealift, give me a maritime brigade, and an armoured Brigade on land'. That is a target that is hard to wriggle out of. A fiscal target gives every economist the opportunity to use his creativity. We were even including military pensions in our 2 percent. Not much use unless we deploy the Chelsea Pensioners I warrant.

 

 

I suspect NATO analyists look at more than just gross spending. The equipment expenditures are also listed in that NATO report I cited above.

 

 

Id like to believe so, but I dont. I think they thought up an easy target they thought everyone could meet in a hurry, to show resolve. Its no more realistic guide of what NATO could or should do than the 3 percent one in the 1980's.

 

 

Should we all spend more? Yes. I for one would favour a return to the 3 percent target we had in the 1980's. But a more practical and realistic one would be to lay down capabilities that NATO actually needs (instead of continually forming cheap and combat useless HQ's all the time), and stop pretending that the 2 percent target is tribute to the US. It simply does not work like that.

It's not a tribute. It's willingness to meet an agreed to target for one's own self interest. How long do you keep trying to help someone who doesn't show effort when the objective is in their own self interest?

 

 

Yes, and I completely agree with you Ryan. But I do not believe you President quite takes on board what the 2 percent target is, a target each nation is to spend on defence. The way he talks about it, its money to go to the US. Go back and search his quotes. He doesnt understand it any better than our national politicians understand defence spending.

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Not as easy as you think now. Previously half the army was in Germany, just down the Autobahn and rail link to Poland and the Baltic states. Now we have relocated the bulk of the Royal Armoured Corp and the Royal Artillery to Tidworth, which is just down the road from Stonehenge, miles inland. The roads are ok, as long as you dont go south, which is where the nearest port, Southampton, happens to be. And you cant carry the tanks on the British Railway network, because of the loading gauge.

Sounds like you need to develop a British analogue to Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point. Looks like some good land near RAF Beaulieu with space on the coast next to the Solent.

 

 

Well we have the ports, as DB points out. What personally do not believe is we have not thought of, or invested in, a means to get them from the barracks to the ports in a hurry. Try driving south from Tidworth to the A303 (the major east west trunk route) and imagine it in a tank transporter, and I see a bit of a problem emerging. Take a look on Google Earth and you might see my point.

 

60 years ago we had the MSWJR, which could bring military equipment from the midlands and Tidworth area right down to Southampton. It closed in the 1960's. Granted we now have motorways, but Ive misgivings of how many tank transporters we have to move 50 plus tanks in a hurry. Even more so that since the 2000's we actually have to call up the TA (now the British Army reserve) to mobilize the tank transporter units. It all takes time.

 

From my best recollection we are obligated under NATO to get an armoured brigade to Europe in a month after hostilities commence. Not only do I think that optimistic, I think it also highly likely, in the way the Russian's have been investing in their conventional forces, any conflict we join will be over, long before it gets there. The logic to my mind would have been to keep the remnant of BAOR in Germany to make it easier, but our PM rejected it out of hand on cost grounds presumably. So we created a major logistic problem for ourself we could have completely avoided.

[Rick]

 

 

Not as easy as you think now. Previously half the army was in Germany, just down the Autobahn and rail link to Poland and the Baltic states. Now we have relocated the bulk of the Royal Armoured Corp and the Royal Artillery to Tidworth, which is just down the road from Stonehenge, miles inland. The roads are ok, as long as you dont go south, which is where the nearest port, Southampton, happens to be. And you cant carry the tanks on the British Railway network, because of the loading gauge.

Sounds like you need to develop a British analogue to Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point. Looks like some good land near RAF Beaulieu with space on the coast next to the Solent.

 

 

Well we have the ports, as DB points out. What personally do not believe is we have not thought of, or invested in, a means to get them from the barracks to the ports in a hurry. Try driving south from Tidworth to the A303 (the major east west trunk route) and imagine it in a tank transporter, and I see a bit of a problem emerging. Take a look on Google Earth and you might see my point.

 

60 years ago we had the MSWJR, which could bring military equipment from the midlands and Tidworth area right down to Southampton. It closed in the 1960's. Granted we now have motorways, but Ive misgivings of how many tank transporters we have to move 50 plus tanks in a hurry. Even more so that since the 2000's we actually have to call up the TA (now the British Army reserve) to mobilize the tank transporter units. It all takes time.

 

From my best recollection we are obligated under NATO to get an armoured brigade to Europe in a month after hostilities commence. Not only do I think that optimistic, I think it also highly likely, in the way the Russian's have been investing in their conventional forces, any conflict we join will be over, long before it gets there. The logic to my mind would have been to keep the remnant of BAOR in Germany to make it easier, but our PM rejected it out of hand on cost grounds presumably. So we created a major logistic problem for ourself we could have completely avoided.

 

So Stuart, I guess the big question would be does the British soldier find German beer as good as English beer

[glenn239]

 

Mike Pence is a great guy but he couldn't withstand what President Trump has withstood. Further, they would demonize President Pence just as much as President Trump. The thing that makes them a target is the "R". Nothing else matters as McCain found out when running for President.

 

Schiff is already making noises about Pence now.

 

 

Is the Senate ever going to grow a pair and start hauling House members into the Senate under oath to better explain their war on the Executive? Or can we look forward to an America where the Democratic House slowly erodes the powers of the other three branches of government (Executive, Senate, Supreme Court)?

[glenn239]

Rmgill Not specifically, but I think that legislation that fails to transmit to the other house (in this case the Senate) by the end of the session is dead legislation. I think the following house could rescind the articles of impeachment if it so chose.

 

 

 

What I wonder is, if the Democrats take the Senate in 2020 while Trump gets reelected, could the House send the 2019 impeachment articles to the Senate then?

 

[Jeff]

Has General Flynn been able to withdraw his plea? I can't imagine under the circumstances that he can be convicted now.

Lying to the FBI? Anything said to people so dishonest that they'd edit a transcript shouldn't be admissible in court.

 

The judge just ruled that he would be sentenced in January after finally denying him the right to see some of the materials that he says, given the IG report, would show he was set up. Time for a pardon.

 

Oh, and the NY State case against Manafort was just tossed on a double jeopardy ruling.

[Jeff]

So it's now reported that Durham has requested all of Brennan's emails, notes and communications. The only reason for doing that is if he's decided that the Russian collusion stuff was crap and he's now focused on how the anti-Trump conspiracy got started. He's already all but said there was no legitimate predicate for the investigation. ADM Mike Rogers, former director of the NSA and the one who warned Trump he was being spied on, is working with Durham. Rogers can lay out the whole plan from the NSA perspective. This likely means that the investigation which Durham has said is now a criminal investigation, has followed the chain all the way to the Brennan/Clapper/Comey level. That's the last stop before the White House. If this starts to jump the firebreak between them and the Obama administration, then it's Katie bar the door. Remember, there's still a lot of questions about why Samantha Power was unmasking all of those Republicans during the election and the WH meeting that happened the day of the inauguration. Also remember the Strzok/Page tweet about "POTUS wants to know everything". The clock is ticking but it seems things are moving.

[Jeff]

Speaking of the Russian collusion hoax, the Left put this nation and this administration through hell for almost 3 years about Russian collusion and not a word of it in the impeachment articles. W T F !

[rmgill]

Yes, and I completely agree with you Ryan. But I do not believe you President quite takes on board what the 2 percent target is, a target each nation is to spend on defence. The way he talks about it, its money to go to the US. Go back and search his quotes. He doesnt understand it any better than our national politicians understand defence spending.

It's slack the US has to take up. Because we always do.

 

The pacifist shits in the UN bitch about US military spending. Even our own liberals bitch about the military spending. Yet noone seems to have a bloody clue how useful Long range transports, a fleet of aerial tankers, carriers, amphibious warfare ships and Maritime Preposition ships are when a giant tsunami hits the far side of the world and everyone wants to help but the only ones who can are those who can deploy there themselves AND unload in the rough conditions created by the disaster.

[Murph]

Death penalty for treason maybe?

[rmgill]

Well we have the ports, as DB points out. What personally do not believe is we have not thought of, or invested in, a means to get them from the barracks to the ports in a hurry. Try driving south from Tidworth to the A303 (the major east west trunk route) and imagine it in a tank transporter, and I see a bit of a problem emerging. Take a look on Google Earth and you might see my point.

I looked at it yesterday. Which is why I was able to point out the open field useful for development.

 

It's 30 miles. You mean to tell me that you guys can't widen the roads and bridges for Tank Transporters between a key Military base for armor and the nearest port for deploying them?

 

 

 

 

60 years ago we had the MSWJR, which could bring military equipment from the midlands and Tidworth area right down to Southampton.

Re-open it. It's ~30 miles. We have Industrial spurs in the US that are longer than 30 miles. You can't strategically move 50 tanks 30 miles in less than a day? It's not like there's half the german army holding various bridges and villages along the way.

 

But seriously, you should have kit loaded in containers with a load table and plans for movement of 1st elements within hours if it's really a ready response force.

 

Mind you, the largest strategic move of armor I've performed was 4 vehicles more than 50 mile's in the US, with amateurs doing all of the loading and load binding, using civilian equipment and 70 yo armor, so my direct experience is rather limited. I'm sure there are a number of forum members who could give better pointers and reasonable times for strategic moves that they've been a part of or even managed.

 

I'll bet the USMC is faster than a month at pushing a Marine Amphibious brigade from Lejune to Europe.

 

It closed in the 1960's. Granted we now have motorways, but Ive misgivings of how many tank transporters we have to move 50 plus tanks in a hurry. Even more so that since the 2000's we actually have to call up the TA (now the British Army reserve) to mobilize the tank transporter units. It all takes time.

It's comments like this that I think rather prove our president's point. You nations aren't serious about defense. Maybe the US cutting you lose would be the best thing for you. You've grown soft relying on the US.

Edited December 23, 2019 by rmgill

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

Well we have the ports, as DB points out. What personally do not believe is we have not thought of, or invested in, a means to get them from the barracks to the ports in a hurry. Try driving south from Tidworth to the A303 (the major east west trunk route) and imagine it in a tank transporter, and I see a bit of a problem emerging. Take a look on Google Earth and you might see my point.

I looked at it yesterday. Which is why I was able to pount out open field useful for development.

 

It's 30 miles. You mean to tell me that you guys can't widen the roads and bridges for Tank Transporters between a key Military base for armor and the nearest port for deploying them?

 

 

 

 

Its England. We would probably have to demolish 20 historic sites and a dozen villages to do that you know.

We just dont spend money on infrastructure. They were making noises 10 years ago when they started talking about bringing back BAOR that Tidworth would be a super garrison, and they would improve rail links to make life better for the people that live there. They still havent done it.

60 years ago we had the MSWJR, which could bring military equipment from the midlands and Tidworth area right down to Southampton.

Re-open it. It's ~30 miles. We have Industrial spurs in the US that are longer than 30 miles. You can't strategically move 50 tanks 30 miles in less than a day? It's not like there's half the german army holding various bridges and villages along the way.

 

But seriously, you should have kit loaded in containers with a load table and plans for movement of 1st elements within hours if it's really a ready response force.

 

Mind you, the largest strategic move of armor I've performed was 4 vehicles more than 50 mile's in the US, with amateurs doing all of the loading and load binding, using civilian equipment and 70 yo armor, so my direct experience is rather limited. I'm sure there are a number of forum members who could give better pointers and reasonable times for strategic moves that they've been a part of or even managed.

 

I'll bet the USMC is faster than a month at pushing a Marine Amphibious brigade from Lejune to Europe.

 

 

The military line is still partly there, and used for military purposes. My point is, you cannot alter the loading gauge that easily between Tidworth and southampton to carry by rail. Ok, here is a better guide to the problems of the line. The bit from Ludgershall to Southampton still exists. The spur to Tidworth does not, but could possibly be relaid. The line to Cheltenham does not and could never be relaid, which is a shame because the Army's main storage site for its tanks is just outside Cheltenham at Ashchurch.

http://swindonsotherrailway.co.uk/

Yes, you can in theory move all this by road. But we have never exercised it, and there may be a good many problems until we do.

 

It closed in the 1960's. Granted we now have motorways, but Ive misgivings of how many tank transporters we have to move 50 plus tanks in a hurry. Even more so that since the 2000's we actually have to call up the TA (now the British Army reserve) to mobilize the tank transporter units. It all takes time.

It's comments like this that I think rather prove our president's point. You nations aren't serious about defense. Maybe the US cutting you lose would be the best thing for you. You've grown soft relying on the US.

 

No, we suffer from precisely the same problem that you do. We dont invest in infrastructure, because we believe its the job of private enterprise to do it. And there is a massive gulf between theory and reality that stops it happening. We have had a privatized rail industry for nearly a quarter of a century now, and we STILL await the improvements in infrastructure it was supposed to provide.

 

Look at it like this, when was the last time you exercised moving an armoured division by rail down to your embarkation ports? Because Ill warrant, its probably much longer than you think. We havent had to do it since WW2, for the very simple reason we had our army on the continent. There was less need to move to the war than wait for it to turn up. This is completely new territory for us we havent had to think about for 70 years, short of some reinforcements we were to take across by RCT ferries. We got rid of those in 1994.

Edited December 21, 2019 by Stuart Galbraith

[Tim the Tank Nut]

it is an awfully good point Stuart makes about domestic maneuvers in the United States. I want a repeat of the Louisiana Maneuvers!

[Tim the Tank Nut]

You know, the collusion and impeachment episodes are examples of the United States' own Dreyfuss affair.

[Jeff]

it is an awfully good point Stuart makes about domestic maneuvers in the United States. I want a repeat of the Louisiana Maneuvers!

 

How do all those forces get back and forth between Iraq/Afghanistan/Syria? How do we send forces to Poland and the Baltics for maneuvers? We may be rusty about moving divisions since OIF but it's not like we haven't done it since WWII. Same for the Brits.

[Jeff]

Catherine Herridge

@CBS_Herridge

 

FBI leadership pushed Steele Dossier for January 2017 intel assessment. Witness told IG Horowitz “McCabe understood President Obama’s request for the ICA to require the participating agencies to share all information relevant to Russia and 2016 elections.” pg. 177 #Durham

 

https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1208411915963305984

 

 

[Nobu]

Have been following the Tessa Majors murder and am interested if Donald will comment, as it is his city, so to speak.

 

There is potential for the crime to change his nation's biggest city in various ways.

[EchoFiveMike]

Meh, another black on white crime, nothing to see here. Interracial crime overwhelmingly goes one way, and it's exactly the opposite what the enemedia tells you. Remember, they don't have to push the Truth very hard, there's plain evidence; they have to push the Lie mercilessly, which is why the enemedia is such a huge business.

 

Was the victim Jewish or perhaps queer? Then you might get some traction, as those blocs have some donor power($$). Otherwise, nope. S/F...Ken M

[lastdingo]

 

 

Mike Pence is a great guy but he couldn't withstand what President Trump has withstood. Further, they would demonize President Pence just as much as President Trump. The thing that makes them a target is the "R". Nothing else matters as McCain found out when running for President.

 

Schiff is already making noises about Pence now.

 

 

Is the Senate ever going to grow a pair and start hauling House members into the Senate under oath to better explain their war on the Executive? Or can we look forward to an America where the Democratic House slowly erodes the powers of the other three branches of government (Executive, Senate, Supreme Court)?

 

That's not three other branches of government, the House did not impair the work of Supreme Court or Senate and it's finally doing its oversight job regarding the Executive branch.

Besides, does anyone have any bit of evidence that the Senate has any authority to investigate the House? This seems like totally made-up nonsense to me.

[R011]

Have been following the Tessa Majors murder and am interested if Donald will comment, as it is his city, so to speak.

 

There is potential for the crime to change his nation's biggest city in various ways.

Why should he? There doesn't seem to be anything special about this case. It's a local story and not much of one in itself.

[Nobu]

I am seeing it as a moment in the racial gentrification and real estate history of Donald's city that could become a defining one. Local, certainly, but then again, all politics is local.

 

The NYT quotes a local who is clearly on one side of the gentrification fence as saying that "people with money [ed. to clarify this as code for skin of a certain coloring] think they can walk anywhere they want" in relation to Tessa's decision to cut across the park.

 

What Donald says is relevant if he wants to be the same in his city.

[R011]

I'm seeing it as another case of Missing White Woman Syndrome.